King Tut Brackets

You can't play a tournament in July with only 12 players. Everyone knows that. I can assure you that no one "got the shaft"
Everyone played their normal allotted minutes. The girls from the Black team filled the spot of the missing White players.

Seriously....why are we really talking about this?

adufresne wrote:You can't play a tournament in July with only 12 players. Everyone knows that. I can assure you that no one "got the shaft"
Everyone played their normal allotted minutes. The girls from the Black team filled the spot of the missing White players.

Seriously....why are we really talking about this?  

So how many DF White players started on the bench with DF Black players starting? Therein lies the missed opportunity for development - more minutes for White players who might not normally get the minutes. Then again, that would mean we would actually be focused on development and not winning . . . and that would mean we might not be in NTX

adufresne wrote:You can't play a tournament in July with only 12 players. Everyone knows that. I can assure you that no one "got the shaft"
Everyone played their normal allotted minutes. The girls from the Black team filled the spot of the missing White players.

Seriously....why are we really talking about this?  

Because go left the board and the hate needs to be directed somewhere. May as well be at the feat.

Because we love to see how many times you will try to defend it...jk

soccerjack wrote:

adufresne wrote:You can't play a tournament in July with only 12 players. Everyone knows that. I can assure you that no one "got the shaft"
Everyone played their normal allotted minutes. The girls from the Black team filled the spot of the missing White players.

Seriously....why are we really talking about this?  

Because go left the board and the hate needs to be directed somewhere. May as well be at the feat.

Yes, better them than us.

The black players only played late in the second of each game after the outcome was decided. What's the big deal?

soccerjack wrote:

adufresne wrote:You can't play a tournament in July with only 12 players. Everyone knows that. I can assure you that no one "got the shaft"
Everyone played their normal allotted minutes. The girls from the Black team filled the spot of the missing White players.

Seriously....why are we really talking about this?  

Because go left the board and the hate needs to be directed somewhere. May as well be at the feat.

No hate at the Feet - actually have quite a bit of respect for the club.

I do have an issue with guest playing players from stronger teams within a club (never from lower teams) and then having these guest players start matches, while girls who are part of the registered team (in tournament or league play) sit on the bench watching. Not a club issue, but a standard practice issue. I actually find it quite comical that people try to defend the practice as a way to support development, when in fact it rarely benefits those that need the most help with development. When people try to justify the practice as being in the best interest of the girls is when I speak up.

That being said, my DDs team has played in tournaments in July with only 12-13 players due to vacations, etc. It can and has been done Given the 'mandatory water breaks' most tournaments in July require, it is easily manageable (plus everyone gets a lot of playing time). The downside is you might not win the tourney . . .Just my two cents.

Love all the experts on "development" out there. How about not taking a girl trying to learn a position in a new system and formation and sticking her in a totally new position? A position she'll probably not play again all year? Why take a forward who's trying to learn positioning and finishing and stick her at CB? Most likely the only thing that will accomplish is trashing her self confidence when she gets beat.

Instead allow the kids to learn their positions or general positions (forward, mids, defense) and build confidence in doing so against supposedly better competition. Why not have subs so the coach can pull girls off and actually coach them in a game situation instead of running them into the ground all weekend.

Next time you're around either Feet sideline why not ask the parents if they feel "shafted" about the development of their daughters.

db10 wrote:Love all the experts on "development" out there. How about not taking a girl trying to learn a position in a new system and formation and sticking her in a totally new position? A position she'll probably not play again all year? Why take a forward who's trying to learn positioning and finishing and stick her at CB? Most likely the only thing that will accomplish is trashing her self confidence when she gets beat.

Instead allow the kids to learn their positions or general positions (forward, mids, defense) and build confidence in doing so against supposedly better competition. Why not have subs so the coach can pull girls off and actually coach them in a game situation instead of running them into the ground all weekend.

Next time you're around either Feet sideline why not ask the parents if they feel "shafted" about the development of their daughters.

Didn't know the parents were the one's I should be concerned about being shafted - my bad....

db10 wrote:Love all the experts on "development" out there. How about not taking a girl trying to learn a position in a new system and formation and sticking her in a totally new position? A position she'll probably not play again all year? Why take a forward who's trying to learn positioning and finishing and stick her at CB? Most likely the only thing that will accomplish is trashing her self confidence when she gets beat.

Instead allow the kids to learn their positions or general positions (forward, mids, defense) and build confidence in doing so against supposedly better competition. Why not have subs so the coach can pull girls off and actually coach them in a game situation instead of running them into the ground all weekend.

Next time you're around either Feet sideline why not ask the parents if they feel "shafted" about the development of their daughters.

I'd stay away from those sidelines....Those people are crazy coo coo.

db10 wrote:Love all the experts on "development" out there. How about not taking a girl trying to learn a position in a new system and formation and sticking her in a totally new position? A position she'll probably not play again all year? Why take a forward who's trying to learn positioning and finishing and stick her at CB? Most likely the only thing that will accomplish is trashing her self confidence when she gets beat.

Instead allow the kids to learn their positions or general positions (forward, mids, defense) and build confidence in doing so against supposedly better competition. Why not have subs so the coach can pull girls off and actually coach them in a game situation instead of running them into the ground all weekend.

Next time you're around either Feet sideline why not ask the parents if they feel "shafted" about the development of their daughters.

Interesting:  so, let me get this straight; if a forward plays D or a defender play F that is somehow NOT developement?  Seems to me knowing the entire scope of play and what teammates are doing (by actually doing it too and purposely BEING uncomfortable) is exactly the kind of developement a parent would want, right?  Last time I checked football is football.  If a coach mixed the whole line-up on occasion in a tourney I would think that as brilliant.  I hope folks aren't on teams at this age where girls are already labeled F/M/D. I get that kids have natural affinity for certain postions but sheesh...let's help them grow.

Of course, playing in a somewhat foreign postition may not fit exactly into the "system" I suppose.  I know how complex these systems can be at age 11...the concept of pass, move to space, repeat sure is hard.  Maybe we should just teach them to "big-kick" to the fast kid instead!  HAHAHAHAHA

Blob wrote:

db10 wrote:Love all the experts on "development" out there. How about not taking a girl trying to learn a position in a new system and formation and sticking her in a totally new position? A position she'll probably not play again all year? Why take a forward who's trying to learn positioning and finishing and stick her at CB? Most likely the only thing that will accomplish is trashing her self confidence when she gets beat.

Instead allow the kids to learn their positions or general positions (forward, mids, defense) and build confidence in doing so against supposedly better competition. Why not have subs so the coach can pull girls off and actually coach them in a game situation instead of running them into the ground all weekend.

Next time you're around either Feet sideline why not ask the parents if they feel "shafted" about the development of their daughters.

Interesting:  so, let me get this straight; if a forward plays D or a defender play F that is somehow NOT developement?  Seems to me knowing the entire scope of play and what teammates are doing (by actually doing it too and purposely BEING uncomfortable) is exactly the kind of developement a parent would want, right?  Last time I checked football is football.  If a coach mixed the whole line-up on occasion in a tourney I would think that as brilliant.  I hope folks aren't on teams at this age where girls are already labeled F/M/D.  I get that kids have natural affinity for certain postions but sheesh...let's help them grow.

Of course, playing in a somewhat foreign postition may not fit exactly into the "system" I suppose.  I know how complex these systems can be at age 11...the concept of pass, move to space, repeat sure is hard.  Maybe we should just teach them to "big-kick" to the fast kid instead!  HAHAHAHAHA

Couldn't agree more. I guess we all define 'development' differently. In theory, good players should be able to play multiple different positions. While it might take some time, development will occur (in term of understanding how the various positions work and how they impact a player's 'primary' position). Plus, my DDs coach does a lot of 'coaching players' at practices and a lot of 'managing the game' during matches. Different approach, I guess.

soccerjack wrote:The black players only played late in the second of each game after the outcome was decided. What's the big deal?

At what point in a tie game is the outcome decided? DFeeters had two ties and were actually behind Solar 05 0-1 halfway through the second half.

adufresne wrote:You can't play a tournament in July with only 12 players. Everyone knows that. I can assure you that no one "got the shaft"
Everyone played their normal allotted minutes. The girls from the Black team filled the spot of the missing White players.

Seriously....why are we really talking about this?  

Because DreadPirateRoberts made the inaccurate statement that a lowly D3 team won the bracket.  I'm pretty sure nobody would have made an issue at all if he hadn't made the statement.

sparky wrote:

soccerjack wrote:The black players only played late in the second of each game after the outcome was decided. What's the big deal?

At what point in a tie game is the outcome decided? DFeeters had two ties and were actually behind Solar 05 0-1 halfway through the second half.

It was decided when they put the Feet black kids in for only two minutes at the end of the second half.  Or maybe it was 20 minutes at the beginning of the first half....It's all so fuzzy now.  There were no trophies involved so consider that payback for this crime against humanity they committed.

This thread seems so racist, black players versus white players, some posters don't think the black players should be playing others thinking the white players didn't get to play enough.   But I only read the third page and I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn.

And what kind of name is D'Feeters anyway. How goofy....It's like cheech and chong started a soccer club while smoking the peace pipe.....Let's call it Da Feet...huhuha...

Blob wrote:

db10 wrote:Love all the experts on "development" out there. How about not taking a girl trying to learn a position in a new system and formation and sticking her in a totally new position? A position she'll probably not play again all year? Why take a forward who's trying to learn positioning and finishing and stick her at CB? Most likely the only thing that will accomplish is trashing her self confidence when she gets beat.

Instead allow the kids to learn their positions or general positions (forward, mids, defense) and build confidence in doing so against supposedly better competition. Why not have subs so the coach can pull girls off and actually coach them in a game situation instead of running them into the ground all weekend.

Next time you're around either Feet sideline why not ask the parents if they feel "shafted" about the development of their daughters.

Interesting:  so, let me get this straight; if a forward plays D or a defender play F that is somehow NOT developement?  Seems to me knowing the entire scope of play and what teammates are doing (by actually doing it too and purposely BEING uncomfortable) is exactly the kind of developement a parent would want, right?  Last time I checked football is football.  If a coach mixed the whole line-up on occasion in a tourney I would think that as brilliant.  I hope folks aren't on teams at this age where girls are already labeled F/M/D.  I get that kids have natural affinity for certain postions but sheesh...let's help them grow.

Of course, playing in a somewhat foreign postition may not fit exactly into the "system" I suppose.  I know how complex these systems can be at age 11...the concept of pass, move to space, repeat sure is hard.  Maybe we should just teach them to "big-kick" to the fast kid instead!  HAHAHAHAHA

So you spend $3500 a year for your daughter to learn "pass, move to space, and repeat"? If that's the case then sure, moving players around to different positions in a tournament would be fine, maybe even helpful. In fact it may be easier for your coach to simply ask the girls before each game "who want's to play ____!"

Personally my daughter has been given the responsibilty to learn the nuances between playing two positions midfield and wing within a 442 flat, 442 diamond, 4231, and a 433 with the goal of the team playing one formation on offence and one on defense. Will this be totally successful at 11 years old? Probably not, but by the time she's 14 she should have it down fairly well. This also happens to be her first year in those two positions, so NO I rather not have her thrown into a position that has no bearing on what she is doing right now or what she will be doing down the road. She can fill in other positions in practice, or in a game that's out of hand and do so with everyday defenders around her to help.

I wonder if the same parents who think Suzy should be able to play any position also want their son's football (and I mean American Football as not to confuse the situation) coach to rotate the guys from offensive line to WR or from LB to QB? I mean what could be more educational than your LB seeing the game from a QB's perspective right?

In this specific case I believe the team in question had 4 out of their 6 defenders away on vacation so the coach asked some defenders from the sister team to come help out so the other field players can gain experience in the positions they will play moving forward. This was important since there are mulitple new players on the team and a number of field players already being asked to play new positions from last year. Why on Earth would he want to add more chaos to the mix by then asking the group to cover another new position? Let's remember it was a warm up game for next season. A game to practice and learn under tournament conditions, switching around your entire line up would make no sense at all.

"Hey Messi, Pique is out...mind grabbing CB for a while?"

I do find it funny the everyone knows the D'Feeters Black players so well, maybe it's because they're on your DD's side of the field most of the time and you get to see their faces up close?

And why are guest players only brought up when a team does well with them. Might just be me but I can't tell the difference from one player to another in certain clubs. Who knows maybe I get lost when there's 18 teams and most play in other leagues. Or maybe some girls always seemed to be on every version of the teams we faced last season.

soccerjack wrote:And what kind of name is D'Feeters anyway.  How goofy....It's like cheech and chong started a soccer club while smoking the peace pipe.....Let's call it Da Feet...huhuha...

Maybe, but the 70's were a goofy time. 37 years...I guess it stands the test of time though.

db10 wrote:

Blob wrote:

db10 wrote:Love all the experts on "development" out there. How about not taking a girl trying to learn a position in a new system and formation and sticking her in a totally new position? A position she'll probably not play again all year? Why take a forward who's trying to learn positioning and finishing and stick her at CB? Most likely the only thing that will accomplish is trashing her self confidence when she gets beat.

Instead allow the kids to learn their positions or general positions (forward, mids, defense) and build confidence in doing so against supposedly better competition. Why not have subs so the coach can pull girls off and actually coach them in a game situation instead of running them into the ground all weekend.

Next time you're around either Feet sideline why not ask the parents if they feel "shafted" about the development of their daughters.

Interesting:  so, let me get this straight; if a forward plays D or a defender play F that is somehow NOT developement?  Seems to me knowing the entire scope of play and what teammates are doing (by actually doing it too and purposely BEING uncomfortable) is exactly the kind of developement a parent would want, right?  Last time I checked football is football.  If a coach mixed the whole line-up on occasion in a tourney I would think that as brilliant.  I hope folks aren't on teams at this age where girls are already labeled F/M/D.  I get that kids have natural affinity for certain postions but sheesh...let's help them grow.

Of course, playing in a somewhat foreign postition may not fit exactly into the "system" I suppose.  I know how complex these systems can be at age 11...the concept of pass, move to space, repeat sure is hard.  Maybe we should just teach them to "big-kick" to the fast kid instead!  HAHAHAHAHA

So you spend $3500 a year for your daughter to learn "pass, move to space, and repeat"? If that's the case then sure, moving players around to different positions in a tournament would be fine, maybe even helpful. In fact it may be easier for your coach to simply ask the girls before each game "who want's to play ____!"

Personally my daughter has been given the responsibilty to learn the nuances between playing two positions midfield and wing within a 442 flat, 442 diamond, 4231, and a 433 with the goal of the team playing one formation on offence and one on defense. Will this be totally successful at 11 years old? Probably not, but by the time she's 14 she should have it down fairly well. This also happens to be her first year in those two positions, so NO I rather not have her thrown into a position that has no bearing on what she is doing right now or what she will be doing down the road. She can fill in other positions in practice, or in a game that's out of hand and do so with everyday defenders around her to help.

I wonder if the same parents who think Suzy should be able to play any position also want their son's football (and I mean American Football as not to confuse the situation) coach to rotate the guys from offensive line to WR or from LB to QB? I mean what could be more educational than your LB seeing the game from a QB's perspective right?

In this specific case I believe the team in question had 4 out of their 6 defenders away on vacation so the coach asked some defenders from the sister team to come help out so the other field players can gain experience in the positions they will play moving forward. This was important since there are mulitple new players on the team and a number of field players already being asked to play new positions from last year. Why on Earth would he want to add more chaos to the mix by then asking the group to cover another new position? Let's remember it was a warm up game for next season. A game to practice and learn under tournament conditions, switching around your entire line up would make no sense at all.

"Hey Messi, Pique is out...mind grabbing CB for a while?"

I do find it funny the everyone knows the D'Feeters Black players so well, maybe it's because they're on your DD's side of the field most of the time and you get to see their faces up close?

And why are guest players only brought up when a team does well with them. Might just be me but I can't tell the difference from one player to another in certain clubs. Who knows maybe I get lost when there's 18 teams and most play in other leagues. Or maybe some girls always seemed to be on every version of the teams we faced last season.  

In fairness I think understand what you're saying and where you're going with this. If I understand what you're saying correctly...its...blah blah blah....cpp..blah blah...blah
blah.

[/quote]

In fairness I think understand what you're saying and where you're going with this. If I understand what you're saying correctly...its...blah blah blah....cpp..blah blah...blah
blah.  
[/quote]

Yep, pretty much...just play who's in front of you. It's not the World Cup, it's 11yr old soccer or shall I say "futbol", and everyone walked away with nothing except a $36 shirt. Of course the players on the D3 team are going to be happy with coming out on top of a bracket with D1, D2, and maybe the top 05 team.

In fairness I think understand what you're saying and where you're going with this. If I understand what you're saying correctly...its...blah blah blah....cpp..blah blah...blah
blah.  
[/quote]

Yep, pretty much...just play who's in front of you. It's not the World Cup, it's 11yr old soccer or shall I say "futbol", and everyone walked away with nothing except a $36 shirt. Of course the players on the D3 team are going to be happy with coming out on top of a bracket with D1, D2, and maybe the top 05 team.[/quote]


You gotta respect fcd on the financial side...make it a friendly...save money on trophies and sell the yoyos that won a $40 t-shirt. Brilliant.

"Great job by D'Feet White to top a bracket of D1 and D2 teams." I think some exception was taken to this comment as it being some kind of big accomplishment, as well as the reference to a "lowly D3 team", since it is admitted that defenders were borrowed from the top team. I guess the point is why characterize it as a great job when it was done with borrowed players from the top team which in effect makes the winner a D1/D2 caliber team.

KnKsDad wrote:"Great job by D'Feet White to top a bracket of D1 and D2 teams." I think some exception was taken to this comment as it being some kind of big accomplishment, as well as the reference to a "lowly D3 team", since it is admitted that defenders were borrowed from the top team. I guess the point is why characterize it as a great job when it was done with borrowed players from the top team which in effect makes the winner a D1/D2 caliber team.

I think your comments above explain why the initial posters felt that White did a great job.  If utilizing a couple defenders from the Black team was sufficient to propel the White team to ties and wins against D1/D2 competition, then it says a lot about the progress made by the rest of the team.  They did not rely on Black team players to score, only using them to fill into positions of White team starters who were not there.  

If the addition of the players elevated White to a D2 team - then great job beating and tying D1 teams.  If the Black players took the White team to D1 caliber - then those Black players are phenomenal game changers, or the White team has continued to progress through additions and training.

soccerisfun wrote:

KnKsDad wrote:"Great job by D'Feet White to top a bracket of D1 and D2 teams." I think some exception was taken to this comment as it being some kind of big accomplishment, as well as the reference to a "lowly D3 team", since it is admitted that defenders were borrowed from the top team. I guess the point is why characterize it as a great job when it was done with borrowed players from the top team which in effect makes the winner a D1/D2 caliber team.

I think your comments above explain why the initial posters felt that White did a great job.  If utilizing a couple defenders from the Black team was sufficient to propel the White team to ties and wins against D1/D2 competition, then it says a lot about the progress made by the rest of the team.  They did not rely on Black team players to score, only using them to fill into positions of White team starters who were not there.  

If the addition of the players elevated White to a D2 team - then great job beating and tying D1 teams.  If the Black players took the White team to D1 caliber - then those Black players are phenomenal game changers, or the White team has continued to progress through additions and training.

Hmmm I see...so the 2 kids filled in at d....no big deal. Interesting statistic for you. Goals against were the lowest in the bracket at 2 but so were the goals for at 5. White was out scored by every team. Coincidence?  I think not. Case closed. Cheater cheater pumpkin eater.

VultureVic wrote:

soccerisfun wrote:

KnKsDad wrote:"Great job by D'Feet White to top a bracket of D1 and D2 teams." I think some exception was taken to this comment as it being some kind of big accomplishment, as well as the reference to a "lowly D3 team", since it is admitted that defenders were borrowed from the top team. I guess the point is why characterize it as a great job when it was done with borrowed players from the top team which in effect makes the winner a D1/D2 caliber team.

I think your comments above explain why the initial posters felt that White did a great job.  If utilizing a couple defenders from the Black team was sufficient to propel the White team to ties and wins against D1/D2 competition, then it says a lot about the progress made by the rest of the team.  They did not rely on Black team players to score, only using them to fill into positions of White team starters who were not there.  

If the addition of the players elevated White to a D2 team - then great job beating and tying D1 teams.  If the Black players took the White team to D1 caliber - then those Black players are phenomenal game changers, or the White team has continued to progress through additions and training.

Hmmm I see...so the 2 kids filled in at d....no big deal. Interesting statistic for you. Goals against were the lowest in the bracket at 2 but  so were the goals for at 5. White was out scored by every team. Coincidence?  I think not. Case closed. Cheater cheater pumpkin eater.

Really?  Not a huge difference:

Sting - 7 - 5 came in 1 game
Kicks - 6 - props to them, scored in every game
Solar - 6 - 3 in 1 game
D'Feeters - 5 - 3 in 1 game
FC Dallas - 5